Patna High CourtCWJC/11793/2008dismissed

Bal Govind Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-07Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11793 of 2008 ====================================================== Bal Govind Tiwari, son of Shri Ram Chandra Tiwari, resident of Manpur Gopal-pandey Gali, Buriyad-Ganj Gaya, P.S. Gaya (Kotwali), District - Gaya (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Water Resources (Minor Irrigation) Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources (Minor Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aurangabad.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Sub-Division no. 1 (HeadQuarters), Aurangabad.

5. The Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Nath Ojha For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General - 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

07-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 2.

In the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in sum and substance, the petitioner has made a prayer for regularizing his services and also a prayer has been made for directing for payment of entire arrear wages. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner worked as daily-wager from November, 1984 to October, 1994 and thereafter, the respondent stopped taking work from the petitioner. A claim has been made that arrear wages are due.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11793 of 2008 (4) dt.07-09-2015 2/2 Despite the fact that as per admitted case, no work has been taken from the petitioner since 1994, the present writ petition has been filed in the month of August, 2008. Moreover, there is no such specific averment as to on which date, wage was not paid to the petitioner.

In view of the fact that petitioner was a daily-wager, whose work has already come to an end in the year 1994, there is no point for examining the case on regularization. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U